W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > February 2009

Re: 2nd Draft response to LC comment 30 (FH4)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:19:15 +0000
Message-Id: <38A8BD05-1CE2-44AD-9077-1D72FD12F0B8@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
It seems fine. I a friendly amendment (take it or leave it; I don't  
require a reply either way).

On 19 Feb 2009, at 09:18, Ivan Herman wrote:

> After the discussion yesterday, here is my draft. (The wiki page has
> also been updated).
> Ivan
> -------------------------------
> To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
> CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
> Subject: [LC response] To Frank van Harmelen
> Dear Frank,
> Thank you for your comment
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/ 
> 0037.html>
> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
> We also note the 'addendum' to your original comment in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/ 
> 0014.html

> And we thank you for helping us avoiding further confusion on this  
> issue.
> Indeed, as you note in your second mail, the current Functional Syntax
> (FS) notation uses the _:x syntax to denote anonymous individuals.  
> This
> is a consequence of the way the new, functional syntax works.
> The primary motivation of changing from the OWL 1 abstract syntax (AS)
> to the OWL 2 FS was that the FS is closer to the syntax used in first
> order logic, which makes various specification issues as well as
> relating OWL 2 abstract constructs to the general literature  
> easier. As
> the primary role of the FS is to _define_ the structure of OWL 2 (and
> not necessarily to serve as a serialization syntax), the clarity of  
> the
> syntax was an important factor for choosing it.

"""In general, in Semantic Web specifications, there has been  
convergence on
using "nodeIDs" to represent blank nodes in linear syntax. Several  
readers found
the implicit blank nodes of the AS (i.e., a blank node was indicated  
by missing names)
quite confusing, so we regard the shift, necessitated by the change  
in statement style
as independently helpful."""

As I say, this is merely a suggestion and I defer to your editorial  
judgment. I think the response is fine and think it's ready to go.

Received on Thursday, 19 February 2009 10:15:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:09 UTC